Unconscious Women Should Be Left to Die

[TracerBullet]

I'm getting annoyed because what I am saying is analogous to the following:

1. Either dogs are animals

or

2. it is not the case that dogs are animals.

And you and tracer bullet insist on saying: "But cats are animals!"

O...k...and your point is...?

not what is being said at all. A rational debate and good reasoning don't include the misrepresentation of those you are having a good and rational debate with

 

[Traditio]

Look, there are fields of study dedicated to the ethics and law you are talking about. This is a huge topic with so many examples, legal cases, etc. I am dismissing you on the simple fact of over simplification. This is not a topic where absolutes make sense.

What part of "law of the excluded middle" do you not understand? Necessarily, A or not A.

 

[TracerBullet]

Except, liberals constantly deny this in the case of rape.

explain

 

[Quetzal]

What part of "law of the excluded middle" do you not understand? Necessarily, A or not A.

That does not make sense in the argument you are presenting. You need to redefine your premise.

 

[Traditio]

That does not make sense in the argument you are presenting. You need to redefine your premise.

Alright. And now I'm done with you. Have a pleasant day. See my closing response to Tracer Bullet.

 

[Quetzal]

Alright. And now I'm done with you. Have a pleasant day. See my closing response to Tracer Bullet.

Cheers, mate! :wave2:

 

[Rusha]

That's still not a legitimate answer to the OP. The OP basically says:

Let's assume premise A. Conclusion B follows.

Let's not ... and say we did.

No unconscious woman should be left to die.
No unconscious man should be left to die.
No unborn baby should be killed because their mother does not like their location.

All too often, anti-abortion/prolife individuals are accused of not caring about the health and welfare of woman. Thank you for so much for offering them ammunition that does not reflect how the rest of us think.

 

[PureX]

Except, liberals constantly deny this in the case of rape.

No, they don't. ANY sexual intercourse without conscious, reasonable consent is a crime. Where consent is not possible, sexual intercourse is rape. Where consent is possible, but not given, sexual intercourse is rape. No liberal (or conservative, either) has ever claimed otherwise.

You lost this battle before it even began, by posing such an absurd straw-"liberal" argument. Now we're all just watching to see how long your ego will make you make a fool of yourself. … 5 pages and counting ...

 

[Traditio]

No, they don't. ANY sexual intercourse without conscious, reasonable consent is a crime. Where consent is not possible, sexual intercourse is rape. Where consent is possible, but not given, sexual intercourse is rape. No liberal (or conservative, either) has ever claimed otherwise.

You lost this battle before it even began, by posing such an absurd straw-"liberal" argument. Now we're all just watching to see how long your ego will make you make a fool of yourself. … 5 pages and counting ...

PureX, I'm afraid that you've misunderstood my point.

What you said, if I've understood you correctly, and speaking more precisely than you did, is the following:

Granted that the unconscious woman cannot consent to medical treatment in act, nonetheless, she potentially can consent to medical treatment, and were she conscious, she would consent. After all, any rational agent would agree to medical treatment in such and such a case. Therefore, there is no violation of her rights.

Now replace all instances of the words "medical treatment" with "sexual intercourse." Would you still grant this line of reasoning?

 

[Traditio]

Let's not ... and say we did.

No unconscious woman should be left to die.
No unconscious man should be left to die.
No unborn baby should be killed because their mother does not like their location.

All too often, anti-abortion/prolife individuals are accused of not caring about the health and welfare of woman. Thank you for so much for offering them ammunition that does not reflect how the rest of us think.

Therefore you have to grant that the initial assumption is false. You must grant that, in some cases, a woman's consent doesn't matter. :idunno:

 

[Rusha]

Therefore you have to grant that the initial assumption is false. You must grant that, in some cases, a woman's consent doesn't matter.

You forgot C. I must grant that you enjoy offending others under the guise of making some *brilliant* point.

:idunno:

We know. That you don't know.

 

[Traditio]

You forgot C. I must grant that you enjoy offending others under the guise of making some *brilliant* point.



We know. That you don't know.

Does the woman's consent matter in the case of life saving medical treatment, presupposing she is unconscious? Yes or no?

 

[PureX]

PureX, I'm afraid that you've misunderstood my point.

What you said, if I've understood you correctly, and speaking more precisely than you did, is the following:

Granted that the unconscious woman cannot consent to medical treatment in act, nonetheless, she potentially can consent to medical treatment, and were she conscious, she would consent. After all, any rational agent would agree to medical treatment in such and such a case. Therefore, there is no violation of her rights.

No, there would still be a violation of her rights, because she did not give her consent to be treated. But, the violation was unavoidable as she was not able to consent, which forced others to make the decision for her. In which case they chose to act in favor of the woman's well-being (not their own).

Now replace all instances of the word "medical treatment" with "sexual intercourse." Would you still grant this line of reasoning?

Of course, as I already stated, sexual intercourse without consent is a violation of her rights, whether she is consciously denying consent, or unconsciously unable to consent. Either way her rights are being violated if she did not give her consent.

The difference is that the EMTs are acting by necessity and on behalf of her well-being, while the rapist is acting unnecessarily and on his own behalf.

Which is why your attempt to equate these scenarios is so absurdly illogical.

 

[Rusha]

Does the woman's consent matter in the case of life saving medical treatment, presupposing she is unconscious? Yes or no?

Does your consent matter if you are unconscious? Should we just step over you because you can't say "yeah, it's okay to intervene ..."?

 

[Traditio]

No, there would still be a violation of her rights, because she did not give her consent to be treated. But, the violation was unavoidable as she was not able to consent, which forced others to make the decision for her. In which case they chose to act in favor of the woman's well-being (not their own).
Of course, as I already stated, sexual intercourse without consent is a violation of her rights, whether she is consciously denying consent, or unconsciously unable to consent. Either way her rights are being violated if she did not cover her consent.

So you simultaneously hold:

1. Her rights are being violated.
2. However, the violation of her rights is both unavoidable and acceptable.

Is this accurate?

In point of fact, 2 is false. The violation of her rights is not unavoidable, as I've outlined in the OP. Letting people die is an option.

Furthermore, you'll have to understand if I can't help but be puzzled when I see a liberal tell me that a woman's rights are being violated, and there's nothing wrong with this.

But more on this below:

The difference is that the EMTs are acting by necessity and on behalf of her well-being,

I grant that the EMT is acting on behalf of her well-being. Depending on the sense of the word "necessity," however, I will deny that he acts by necessity. Again, letting the woman die is an option, and one which, I think that you will agree, respects her rights (since, as you yourself said above, not letting her die violates her rights, but that's apparently OK in this instance; necessarily, the EMT either violates or does not violate the woman's rights; therefore, if by acting, he violates her rights, by not acting (and therefore letting her die), he does not violate (and therefore, I assume, respects) her rights).

while the rapist is acting unnecessarily and one his own behalf.

The analogy is on the matter of consent. However, based on what you've said, it appears that what you say is the following:

Both the rapist and the EMT violate the woman's rights. However, the end for which the rapist acts does not justify this violation of rights (to my mind, the notion of a violation of right being justified is a flat contradiction), whereas the EMT violates her rights, and justifiably so, in pursuit of a greater good/interest.

Is this basically what you are saying?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Women, liberals say, have a right to privacy. What this means is that another person cannot, intentionally or unintentionally, violate a woman's bodily integrity, for example, by putting thing into her body, without her informed and expressed consent.

That's why liberals think that it's OK to murder unborn children. If a woman doesn't want that baby in her uterus, then hey, it's her body. If she didn't say "OK," then get that baby out of there!

Now, suppose that there is an unconscious woman who is on the verge of death (she had, say, a heart attack). A man is nearby, who is considering whether or not to give her mouth to mouth rescucitation. There are paramedics and doctors wondering whether they should administer treatment, possibly even invasive treatment (for example, a ventillator, IV fluids, etc).

There are people wondering whether or not they should move the woman to different surroundings (say, a hospital).

Based on liberal thinking, my answer is: "No. That woman is unconscious. She cannot give her informed, expressed consent, and she has a right to privacy. Respect her privacy rights! Leave her to die! "

You really got ripped off with your philosophy degree. That is the stupidest line of reasoning I have seen. Wow. Just wow.

 

[Traditio]

You really got ripped off with your philosophy degree. That is the stupidest line of reasoning I have seen. Wow. Just wow.

Do you know what a reductio ad absurdum is?

 

[Traditio]

Does your consent matter if you are unconscious? Should we just step over you because you can't say "yeah, it's okay to intervene ..."?

I agree with you, Rusha. There are cases in which consent doesn't matter. Why do you have such a difficulty admitting this?

 

[PureX]

So you simultaneously hold:

1. Her rights are being violated.
2. However, the violation of her rights is both unavoidable and acceptable.

Is this accurate?

Welcome to reality, where binary absolutism falls victim to the paradox of relativity.

"Acceptable"? Acceptable to whom?

In point of fact, 2 is false. The violation of her rights is not unavoidable, as I've outlined in the OP. Letting people die is an option.

Avoidable to whom? The problem you're having is that you're trying to apply absolutist standards to relative conditions. Every scenario, in reality, is subjective. Yet you're trying to force them all into an absolutist's logic. And reality just doesn't work that way.

Yes, the medical treatment is a violation of her rights. Yes, it could be "avoided". But in reality she almost certainly would have agreed to the treatment if she could, and will be grateful for the "violation" if she survives.

Ideals are like lighthouses, they are fine things to set the course of our actions BY, but they become disastrous when we steer directly at them, every time. The ideal of informed consent is like that, too. And we have to know when it's more reasonable to steer our actions BY that ideal rather than steering directly FOR it.

Furthermore, you'll have to understand if I can't help but be puzzled when I see a liberal tell me that a woman's rights are being violated, and there's nothing wrong with this.

That's because you're deliberately being a fool, and making "liberals" out to be something they aren't. Why don't you grow up, and start seeing people as people, instead of some childish caricatures built to boost your own sagging ego?

I grant that the EMT is acting on behalf of her well-being. Depending on the sense of the word "necessity," however, I will deny that he acts by necessity.

No one cares what YOU deny. All that matters is what the EMT deems necessary. Because every one of these scenarios is unique, and the decision will land on the shoulders of some specific care-giver to judge the "necessity" of acting on another's behalf.

There is no absolute rule to be found here. That's the fact that you're mind is completely missing.

Both the rapist and the EMT violate the woman's rights. However, the end for which the rapist acts does not justify this violation of rights (to my mind, the notion of a violation of right being justified is a flat contradiction), whereas the EMT violates her rights, and justifiably so, in pursuit of a greater good/interest.

Is this basically what you are saying?

There is no absolute "justification". There are ideals, and there are choices. And there are the unique incidents that call them into play. That's it. The conclusions you're looking for don't exist. The evil liberals you're trying so desperately to humiliate don't exist, either. They are just people trying to act on their ideals, within the situations in which they find themselves.

Grow up!

 

[Traditio]

Welcome to reality, where binary absolutism falls victim to the paradox of relativity.

Necessarily, either A or not A.

"Acceptable"? Acceptable to whom?

I was under the impression that you were saying that it's acceptable. Is this not what you were saying?

Avoidable to whom?

Absolutely speaking. The EMTs choose to "violate her rights" (as far as I can see, you yourself said this) in order to save her. They could have done otherwise.

The problem you're having is that you're trying to apply absolutist standards to relative conditions. Every scenario, in reality, is subjective.

No, it isn't. In point of fact, I currently am typing on my laptop. Teen Titans Go! is playing on my television. I am procrastinating from reading Proclus' Elements of Theology in favor of responding to what you said.

All of this is actually the case, independently of your or my point of view.

Likewise, a woman, let us suppose, is lying on the floor. She just had a heart attack. Does she have a "right to privacy"? Either she does or she doesn't. Is consent necessary in order not to violate that right? Either it is or it isn't. Can the EMT get her consent? Either he can or he can't.

Yet you're trying to force them all into an absolutist's logic. And reality just doesn't work that way.

Either it works that way, or else, there's no such thing as reality.

Yes, the medical treatment is a violation of her rights. Yes, it could be "avoided".

Why object so vehemently with what I just said if you're just going to agree with me?

But in reality she almost certainly would have agreed to the treatment if she could, and will be grateful for the "violation" if she survives.

You seem to be fluctuating back and forth between two positions. Are you telling me that the violation of her rights is justified:

1. Because she would have consented, if only she were conscious?
2. Or because the violation of her rights is intended to procure a greater good, i.e., the preservation of her life?

Or both? Or neither?

Ideals are like lighthouses, they are fine things to set the course of our actions BY, but they become disastrous when we steer directly at them. The ideal of informed consent is like that, too. And we have to know when it's more reasonable to steer our actions BY that ideal rather than steering directly FOR it.

Then you ultimately agree with my conclusion: sometimes, consent doesn't matter.

Or are you saying something different?

That's because you're deliberately being a fool, and making "liberals" out to be something they aren't. Why don't you grow up, and start seeing people as people, instead of some childish caricatures built to boost your own sagging ego?

Not particularly constructive to the debate at hand. :idunno:

No now cares what YOU deny. All that matters is what the EMT deems necessary.

Um...no. In reality, in the sense of "absolutely necessary," it was not necessary for the EMT to save the woman. It was possible for him not to do so. Morally necessary? Maybe you have a point. Again, it depends on what "necessary" means in this context.

Because every one of these scenarios is unique, and the decision will land on the shoulders of some specific care-giver to judge the "necessity" of.

You've emphasizing the role of prudence in making morally sound decisions here and now. I fully grant this. That's not what I was getting at.

There is no absolute rule to be found here. That's the fact that you're mind is missing.

Absolutely speaking, he could have chosen not to save the woman. And by your own admission, that course of action would not have violated her rights.

Or do you deny this?

There is no absolute "justifications". There are ideals, and there are choices. And there are the unique incidents that call them into play. That's it. The conclusion you're looking for does't exist. The evil liberals you're trying so desperately to humiliate don't exist.

Grow up!

I'll just cut to the punchline. Based on what you've said, why should an appeal to a woman's "right to privacy," in the context of abortion "rights," impress me? If I've understood you correctly, you've considerably weakened the liberal argument.